Huw,
It isn't about logic. It is about not being a jerk. Many people can be logical *and* kind.
In other words, I do not accept your implicit equation that being logical means being dominating, cruel, and/or insensitive. Even Mr. Spock was not a mechanical automaton, but then he was half human; you are 100% human. Unless... you are just a bot that has passed the Turing test. In that case, bravo.
How is that for being brief, without bullet points.
Annalisa
________________________________
From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu <xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu> on behalf of Huw Lloyd <huw.softdesigns@gmail.com>
Sent: Friday, October 28, 2016 1:52 PM
To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity
Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Analysis of Gender in early xmca discourse
I would like to say again I am sorry for the rude email, its been a day for
squirming. What I would like to do, is take something from this. The
technology part to the offensive email was the reason I chipped in.
Generally I like to brief, both to get to the point but also not to hog the
space.
Here are some issues, I am currently thinking about:
i) Lets assume for the sake of it that a 'discourse of logic' is one of
many equally applicable approaches. I have read interesting articles about
the treatment of science as a specialisation of writing, so it is not
entirely foreign to me.
ii) This raises (to me) big questions concerning alternative viable
structures for many subjects (-ologies) and the fabric of technology. But
even were we to try to put this aside and to treat discourses as equal, if
it turns out that actually one discourse is inherently more powerful than
another in a certain context, then we again have a problem of 'pandering'
to the weaker discourse and effectively reducing opportunities for taking
up something that is inherently more useful in that context.
iii) A significant proportion of the discourse pertaining to technical
understandings of developmental processes is heavily logical.
iv) Let us suppose that you can have a convention along the lines of "when
in Rome...", meaning that each thread has a dominant discourse, how does
that pan out?
v) Supposing one said "logic is an offensive weapon, and should only be
used in certain contexts", well are we not denying this skill to others by
hiding it away?
Back to the technology. I don't know if its clear, but the reasoning I was
giving earlier about "a social policy" being the most important is, I
think, the same thing Greg is alluding to.
Best,
Huw
On 28 October 2016 at 18:39, Greg Mcverry <jgregmcverry@gmail.com> wrote:
> I too am new to the list serve. In fact I think Jacob introduced me. I have
> since shared XMCA with scholars everywhere, but I often get the feedback
> that the practices do feel engendered.
>
> Basically I get comments that the academic discourse is of the
> -oneupmanship (deliberately engendered) and argumentation that has long
> favored the dominant narrative. Basically privledged white males excel at
> this kind of discourse sense they helped to build the system.
>
> This is not something unique to the listserv. It is something as a society
> we need to address.
>
> Can technology help? Maybe> I think listserves stink because they work so
> well. They are truly one of the only federated systems on the web.
>
> Their success leads to an amplification and mirroring of discourse
> practices that exist in both digital and meat spaces.
>
> I do wonder if we turned to open source tools like Discourse (an email
> enabled discussion board) where features could help create a more inclusive
> environment. Specifically there are moderation tools, we can create labels,
> archive discussions, have private chat features....and actually find
> previous conversations.
>
> Just switching platforms will not address the problem.
>
> I am not saying technology isn't value laden but we as actors must be
> conscience of community we create and curate .
>
>
>
> On Fri, Oct 28, 2016 at 11:37 AM Huw Lloyd <huw.softdesigns@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> On 28 October 2016 at 15:16, Jenna McWilliams <jennamcjenna@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > I do think the people who choose to "stay clear," as you say, of gender
> > are those who tend to feel that accusations of sexism are, as you say,
> > "arbitrary." They're nearly always not arbitrary, no matter how confusing
> > it may feel to be on the receiving end of such an accusation.
> >
> >
> By arbitrary I mean the relative scope of what is logically perceived and,
> worse, when the logic itself is perceived to be part of the power
> relation. I.e. when a request to heed the logic is itself treated as
> exercising an abusive power. It is true that logic is powerful -- a hard
> won skill -- but I think it is madness to politicise it. If you could
> disentangle the various sources of power, then perhaps it would be a
> simpler problem.
>
> I hope that helps and I'm happy to continue offline.
>
> Best,
> Huw
>
>
>
> >
> >
> >
> > Jacob McWilliams
> > jennamcjenna@gmail.com
> >
> > Sent from my iPhone
> >
> > > On Oct 28, 2016, at 7:51 AM, Alfredo Jornet Gil <a.j.gil@iped.uio.no>
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > thank you so much for taking the time to articulate, Huw, it is very
> > much appreciated. Of course, humour ceases to be such when explained...
> But
> > yes, there is definitely an issue and it seems that staying clear when
> > using sexist terms could also be in the subject line.
> > >
> > > Alfredo
> > >
> > >
> > > ________________________________________
> > > From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu <xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu
> >
> > on behalf of Huw Lloyd <huw.softdesigns@gmail.com>
> > > Sent: 28 October 2016 10:35
> > > To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity
> > > Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Analysis of Gender in early xmca discourse
> > >
> > > Clarifying on the link, it is a cartoon in which a female stick figure
> is
> > > saying "Penises: they are about this big (pretty small). Now can we
> > please,
> > > as a culture, move on."
> > >
> > > The headings are a simple leap: it is necessary to be overt if you want
> > to
> > > indicate some form of desired behaviour. I literally do mean that you
> > > could put "slow" up in the subject line, indicating that you want to
> > have a
> > > slow conversation... and that you don't mind if you have a thread that
> > > appears to have fallen with a thud. The peculiarity of it is
> > commensurate
> > > with the peculiarity of wanting to guide others in the responses
> sought.
> > >
> > > It seems to me to be a plague subject: something v. important, but also
> > > something that can be used to accuse others on pretty much any
> arbitrary
> > > basis. No wonder people stay clear.
> > >
> > > Sorry, again, to offend. I really do have other things I should be
> > doing.
> > >
> > > Best,
> > > Huw
> > >
> > >> On 28 October 2016 at 07:44, Alfredo Jornet Gil <a.j.gil@iped.uio.no>
> > wrote:
> > >>
> > >> Annalisa, Huw,
> > >>
> > >> As someone that has moved from one country (Spain) to another
> (Norway),
> > >> then lived a while in another (Australia), and yet a couple more years
> > >> somewhere else (Canada), having in the way changed kindergarten,
> school,
> > >> neighbourhood, hair dresser, office colleagues... I know how closely
> > >> humour/irony and membership are connected. You really don't need to
> move
> > >> across countries to know that, just try to follow any English
> > conversation
> > >> between professional/training pilots, or a chat between orange pickers
> > in
> > >> Valencia talking Spanish or Catalan (no matter what country they are
> > from)
> > >> while lunch during a work day, to realise that you have no clue what
> > they
> > >> are talking about even though they seem to be talking (and laughing)
> in
> > a
> > >> language (English, Spanish, Catalan) you think you know.
> > >>
> > >> When I read Huw's post, I had to do a search for almost every word he
> > >> used, including hogging, humping, and I am still wondering whether
> > "SHUF"
> > >> might refer to a command in programming that generates "random
> > >> permutations" (that's what I found online!). I did not know these
> > words in
> > >> English, and so I had to look for them. Even more embarrassing is the
> > fact
> > >> that, even though I know every word, I have not yet got what the
> > squirrel
> > >> story is about, or how it relates to the thread it was posted on...
> Not
> > >> that the story is nonsense, but only that I do not (yet) belong to
> > whatever
> > >> history (chains of reference, whatever you'd like to call it) has
> > brought
> > >> it up as a sense-full story/joke/turn, etc.
> > >>
> > >> The thing is that humour seems to be tightly connected to the sort of
> > >> abbreviation that Vygotsky described with regard to inner speech. As
> > people
> > >> get along well together, just as the 3 boys in Larry's post do, there
> is
> > >> lesser need for articulation, things can be shortened, they can simply
> > be
> > >> suggested by a word, a gesture. As Vygotsky notes, "When the thoughts
> > and
> > >> consciousness of the interlocutors are one, the role of speech in the
> > >> achievement of flawless understanding is reduced to a minimum." I love
> > >> humour, and irony (not sarcasm, as Huw notes), and I believe they are
> > vital
> > >> for a healthy humanity and, again as Huw notes, to a healthy list.
> > Through
> > >> humour we can address challenges and paradoxes in ways that
> articulation
> > >> and explicit talk simply cannot. Yet, if it is right that humour rests
> > upon
> > >> this competence of abbreviating, of not needing to say the unsaid to
> > make
> > >> it said, then there always is the risk that someone else won't hear
> the
> > >> same and, worst, feel excluded, ridiculed, etc... I think those are
> > >> occasions for articulating rather than for more abbreviation. I think
> > that
> > >> such occasions are important because, otherwise, we may loose highly
> > >> interesting discussions on the historical and genetic account of the
> > >> problem (what Annalisa and Larry have been asking for, what Huw
> > probably is
> > >> missing and asking for too) and how such an account may be different
> and
> > >> more productive than protocolary statements of the sort of those
> > exposed in
> > >> the video Annalisa has shared.
> > >>
> > >> With all due respect,
> > >> Alfredo
> > >>
> > >> PS: you can see in how much I do articulate how much of an outsider I
> > >> feel/am, and how much work it takes for us to participate. I hope to
> be
> > >> able to abbreviate a bit more at some point...
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> ________________________________________
> > >> From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu <xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.
> edu>
> > >> on behalf of Annalisa Aguilar <annalisa@unm.edu>
> > >> Sent: 28 October 2016 05:24
> > >> To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity
> > >> Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Analysis of Gender in early xmca discourse
> > >>
> > >> Thank you for the explanation.
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> Why not address Huw? Why me?
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> ________________________________
> > >> From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu <xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.
> edu>
> > >> on behalf of David H Kirshner <dkirsh@lsu.edu>
> > >> Sent: Thursday, October 27, 2016 9:18 PM
> > >> To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity
> > >> Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Analysis of Gender in early xmca discourse
> > >>
> > >> Surely, Annalisa, a symbol of intimidation, rather than intimidation,
> > >> itself.
> > >> David
> > >>
> > >>
> >
> >
>